17:02:22 RRSAgent has joined #social 17:02:22 logging to http://www.w3.org/2015/09/29-social-irc 17:02:24 RRSAgent, make logs public 17:02:24 Zakim has joined #social 17:02:26 Zakim, this will be SOCL 17:02:26 I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot 17:02:26 present+ aaronpk 17:02:27 Meeting: Social Web Working Group Teleconference 17:02:27 Date: 29 September 2015 17:02:30 present+ tantek 17:02:30 present+ Arnaud 17:02:33 present+ sandro 17:02:33 present+ AnnB 17:02:36 present+ hhalpin 17:02:43 present+ eprodrom 17:03:10 Agenda is in the /topic but just in case: http://www.w3.org/wiki/socialwg/2015-09-29 17:03:52 present+ ben_thatmustbeme 17:03:55 present+ cwebber2 17:06:03 i can scribe 17:06:06 i cannot this time 17:06:16 scribe: aaronpk 17:06:17 scribenick: aaronpk 17:06:20 present+ kevinmarks 17:06:35 TOPIC: last week's minutes 17:06:38 https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2015-09-22-minutes 17:06:53 tantek: any objections or can we get some +1s 17:06:54 +1 17:06:57 +1 17:06:59 +1 17:07:13 RESOLVED: approved Sep 22 minutes 17:07:19 TOPIC: upcoming face to face 17:07:27 https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2015-09-29#Social_Web_WG_F2F_Fall_2015 17:07:29 tantek: we have converged on Dec 1-2 in SF based on the doodle poll 17:07:44 ... hosted by mozilla, and if for some reason that falls through, IBM has offered to be a backup 17:07:54 ... expect details on that soon, but you can start planning travel 17:07:59 ... mozilla locatino is in san francisco proper 17:08:04 not really! if you'd been on the chairs you would know I guess 17:08:13 s/chairs/chairs call/ 17:08:16 ... you can fly in to either the oakland or SFO you can get there by transit 17:08:28 SJC also doable by transit 17:08:30 sandro: is there a particular hotel you would recommend? 17:08:54 tantek: SF has this odd hotel market, hotels are typically very expensive, so I don't tend to recommend them 17:09:11 ... i can give you the location of the venue 17:09:16 venue https://wiki.mozilla.org/SF 17:09:35 ... so many of the hotels around town are within minutes via transit, so it's mostly personal preference 17:09:47 ... there are a lot of folks who are price sensitive, so I would strongly encourage looking at getting an airbnb 17:09:53 ... which is also a good option to go in on and share 17:09:56 There' s some hotels in SF that W3C usually uses: http://www.w3.org/2013/socialweb/organization.html 17:10:02 Pelf made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2015-09-29]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=85800&oldid=85799 17:10:11 but haven't looked into their distance from this particular venue 17:10:19 ... if there are specific hotels you have questions about I am happy to take those offline 17:10:35 ... but I would generally recommend airbnb near transit 17:11:04 ... any other questions abotu the f2f 17:11:12 ... is there anyone here who can defintiely make it or definitely not? 17:11:16 q+ 17:11:20 I have to look into ticket prices and crashspace 17:11:23 +1 (likely, need to ask travel permission) 17:11:31 sandro: why do we not think the doodle poll is accurate 17:11:39 tantek: sometimes things change 17:11:44 sandro: at this point i woudl think the doodle poll is accurate 17:11:48 tantek: okay i think that's reasonable 17:11:58 as time passes, then you might want to check 17:11:59 http://doodle.com/poll/sc29irgniqqseqtp 17:12:39 tantek: Ann you're on the call but i don't see you on the poll 17:12:56 present+ tsyesika 17:13:00 AnnB: that's because Boeing is dropping out, and I won't be able to be an invited expert for 3 months according to process 17:13:03 https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2015-12-01 17:13:04 tantek: we will miss you ann! 17:13:23 Zakim, who is here? 17:13:23 Present: aaronpk, tantek, Arnaud, sandro, AnnB, hhalpin, eprodrom, ben_thatmustbeme, cwebber2, kevinmarks, tsyesika 17:13:25 On IRC I see RRSAgent, hhalpin, Arnaud, AnnB, tantek, eprodrom, jasnell, shepazu, melvster, elf-pavlik, Loqi, bret, KevinMarks, ben_thatmustbeme, ElijahLynn, tessierashpool_, 17:13:25 ... bigbluehat, wilkie, rhiaro_, cwebber2, wavis, dwhly, pdurbin, oshepherd, rhiaro, slvrbckt, aaronpk, tommorris_, tsyesika, raucao, sandro, trackbot, wseltzer_transit 17:13:26 AnnB: we will miss you, but look forward working with you when all things work out :) 17:13:30 AnnB: I am exploring the possibility of an ongoing role (not a paid job) with the w3c, because i think the work is important 17:13:46 hhalpin: i'm sure we can do an invited expert thing 17:13:52 will be there shortly 17:13:53 running late 17:13:55 AnnB: Dec 11 is my last day, i'mt aking a voluntary layoff 17:14:01 tantek: we definitely appreciate all of your contributions 17:14:11 For the more adventurous WG members looking for an AIRBNB, a shared yacht! https://www.airbnb.com/rooms/6481703?checkin=11%2F30%2F2015&checkout=12%2F02%2F2015&s=hPpw895R 17:14:39 q? 17:15:01 I'm on 17:15:05 https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2015-12-01 17:15:06 for dreamforce they moored a cruise liner in SF 17:15:22 eprodrom: I started a wiki page for the f2f so wec an start put together a list of actual attendees 17:15:28 ... as well as starting to put together the agenda 17:15:28 eprodrom++ for starting the wiki page for the f2f! 17:15:31 eprodrom has 26 karma 17:15:39 ... so that's the place to put your name if you'd like to express your interest or regrets 17:15:45 Evan is a rock star 17:15:53 tantek: sounds good, loks like the only person on the call who did not answer the doodle is jessica 17:15:58 I'm probably not coming 17:16:01 unfortunately 17:16:15 ... sorry to hear that. we'l try to set up some sort of remote participation 17:16:20 I'll definitely participate remotely though 17:16:32 q? 17:16:34 ack eprodrom 17:16:38 ... any other questions on the f2f? 17:17:00 ... i'm pretty excited about this, if we do get about a dozen people there according to the poll we would have a very productive session 17:17:09 ... looking forward to seeing everyone there 17:17:24 TOPIC: ActivityStreams 2.0 17:17:26 https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2015-09-29#Activity_Streams_2.0 17:17:36 tantek: in particular, two things there, publication status... 17:17:53 jasnell: i have the updated draft ready to go, waiting on some things on the w3c side 17:18:03 ... the pubchecker doesn't support the new publication license, so it errors when I attempt to publish 17:18:13 tantek: is this is the ___ pubchecker? 17:18:19 .. were you able to file a github issue against it? 17:18:20 s/___/Echidna 17:18:21 bblfish has joined #social 17:18:29 jasnell: working on it, following up later on this morning 17:18:36 tantek: sandro think you can help james out? 17:18:47 sandro: pretty sure it's being taken care of, the patch is being done and now it's just the copyright 17:19:20 Arnaud: there are two parts to this problem, the first one was fixed with respec getting updated for the new license, tbut the rules checker is not yet done 17:19:22 jaywink has joined #social 17:19:25 jasnell: as soon as that's done i can get it published 17:19:37 tantek: did the folks applying the patch have an ETA for when the updated pubrules checker would be live? 17:19:53 jasnell_ has joined #social 17:20:02 Eprodrom made 2 edits to [[Socialwg/2015-12-01]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=85802&oldid=0 17:20:07 tantek: I wanted to offer my thanks for being the w3c canary in the new license coal mine and finding the obstacles in the process 17:20:25 ... every other group adopting this licesnse will benefit from the work being done 17:21:01 TOPIC: ActivityStreams issues 17:21:07 tantek: james were there specific issues you wanted to discuss? 17:21:15 jasnell: no, I think we're pretty much stable 17:21:17 q+ 17:21:23 ... I know some others have raised issues but none from me 17:21:24 ack eprodrom 17:21:32 http://www.w3.org/Social/track/issues/8 17:21:48 eprodrom: the issue I want to make sure we bring attention to is #8, the test suite 17:21:57 ... this iss osmething we need to get done to go to CR and it's languishing 17:22:04 ... we need to put more interest in it as a group 17:22:15 ... we had for a while a developer from IBM, I don't think he's still pushing this forward 17:22:24 ... so my question is what can we do to push forward the test suite 17:22:32 ... is the code we have a good basis for moving forward and if not how do we get there 17:22:41 ... and in particular who would like to work on the test quite 17:22:44 s/quite/suite 17:22:53 tantek: i agree the test suite is one of the essential items for us to make progress 17:22:57 q+ 17:23:03 ... it also helps to signal that a working draft is being implemented 17:23:12 ... because that typically means there are implementers coding against those tests 17:23:19 ... it helps demonstrate that we've been doing our homeworok properly 17:23:30 ... i want to repeat evan's call for volunteers, we definitely need folks to contribute to the test suite 17:23:34 jasnell_: did we lose you? 17:23:37 ... prefereably people who are actually implementing 17:23:44 I'm still here 17:23:52 q? 17:23:54 ... but of course anyone, even if you are publishing or consuming can contribute tests 17:23:55 ack hhalpin 17:24:09 hhalpin: quick question, i think we could try to devote some thoughtworks resources to it 17:24:23 ... they have a contract to contribute to AS2.0, did we approve their IE access? 17:24:29 q+ 17:24:33 tantek: just to make it clear, what's the realtionship between W3C and thoughtworks? 17:25:01 hhalpin: thoughtworks is on a contract not from w3c with three city govs, finland spain and iceland, they are buidling some software using AS2.0 to share public data 17:25:09 ... finland is map data, spain is policy data 17:25:18 ... they're asking me when their IE status is approved 17:25:31 tantek: so that contract is not with the w3c but they are being paid by whoever they are contracted with 17:25:39 hhalpin: yes the european commission 17:25:49 tantek: is the european commission a member of the w3c 17:25:51 hhalpin: no 17:26:24 eprodrom: we didn't have a lot of information on thoughtworks so we wanted more information before we approve their application 17:26:42 tantek: so evan you've already taken an action to 17:26:49 eprodrom: yes, hopefully we'll have that discussion next week 17:27:00 tantek: hopefully we'll have a thumbsup/down status on their participation before the call next week 17:27:08 bblfish has joined #social 17:27:08 ... assuming they are accepted would be great to have them on the call next week 17:27:29 ... any other specific AS issues to discuss? 17:27:34 TOPIC: Social API 17:27:36 https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2015-09-29#Social_API 17:27:47 tantek: amy is not here, aaron is minuting 17:27:59 ... chris or jessica, want to provide a status update on the collaborative work? 17:28:13 I've been busy this week so I'm probably not the best person to ask 17:28:18 cwebber2: i haven't been active on it, haven't spoken to amy or aaron this week 17:28:30 tantek: aaron want to speak? 17:29:10 aaronpk: I've been working on my implemenation this week, specifically abotu collections and multiple feeds, so nothing to share just yet but hopfully soon 17:29:16 q? 17:29:20 ack eprodrom 17:29:34 from before 17:29:52 TOPIC: tracking of actions and issues 17:29:55 https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2015-09-29#Tracking_of_Actions_and_Issues 17:30:13 tantek: looking quickly there aren't any pending or raised issues 17:30:19 ... anyone have specific issues they have new information to report? 17:31:07 tantek: i have an update on issue 4 17:31:08 issue 4 17:31:12 issue-4 17:31:12 issue-4 -- Do we rely on explicit typing or support implicit typing based on explicit property names? -- open 17:31:12 http://www.w3.org/Social/track/issues/4 17:31:22 action-35 17:31:22 action-35 -- Tantek Çelik to Come up with a simple proposal for implicit typing based on property names -- due 2015-02-10 -- OPEN 17:31:22 http://www.w3.org/Social/track/actions/35 17:31:33 tantek: i've completed that one with a proposal that i've written up 17:31:46 ... based on existing work in the indiewebcamp community, i'm bringing it to the WG for consideration 17:31:47 https://indiewebcamp.com/post-type-discovery 17:31:59 ... i've written it up on the IWC wiki but can easily copy it to the w3c wiki or github to take the next steps 17:32:17 ... if this is a proposal that this group is willing to take for consideration to publish as a working draft 17:32:39 ... i believe with this one i've completed action 35, i'll add that to the action 17:32:40 I'd have to read it first! 17:32:48 q+ 17:32:58 ... the specific proposal is for the WG to accept it as an editor's draft 17:33:15 ... and if so, then i'll go ahead and do the proper copy-paste to w3c space 17:33:34 ... we should give the group like a week to review it to see if it's reasonable to consider 17:33:46 ... is that enough time or does anyone want more time to review? 17:33:52 sandro: i'm confused abotu the discussion process here 17:33:57 ... where is the discussion going to take place 17:34:00 tantek: good quetsion. 17:34:13 ... i would prefer the discussion to be in #social wg irc channel 17:34:21 -1 17:34:24 ... of course if people want to discuss it anywhere they want like the mailing list that's fine too 17:34:34 sandro: if people want to talk to you about it, they have to find you on irc? 17:34:47 tantek: what i will do which is customary with w3c working drafts is put my email address on there 17:34:51 q? 17:35:03 ... since typical drafts are discussed on the mailing list i don't see how we would differ for that, that's the convention we'd have to go with 17:35:11 q? 17:35:13 ack eprodrom 17:35:28 eprodrom: tantek, i apologize here, but i don't know if there's a typical discussion mechanism on the indiewebcamp wiki 17:35:41 ... but i know that talk pages are kind of frowned upon, is there a way we could talk on the wiki? 17:35:48 tantek: sure! i'm happy to add a commentary/feedback section 17:35:54 eprodrom: that might be a good place to centralize the converation 17:36:15 tantek: i've added a feedback section 17:36:17 https://indiewebcamp.com/post-type-discovery#Feedback 17:36:20 +1 17:36:42 ... that can certainly suffice for now, but if the WG adopts it as an editor's draft then the right thing to do is use the w3c discussion forums including our IRC channel and mailing list 17:37:02 .. we'll use the usual w3c technique to put the topic tag between brackets so the email threads are clear 17:37:03 q? 17:37:17 ... that's all i had for open issues/actions 17:37:24 q+ 17:37:45 +1 sounds good here 17:37:49 ... i'll mark 35 as "p[ending review" and we can discuss next week 17:37:51 Arnaud: yeah that's fine 17:38:08 q? 17:38:11 ack eprodrom 17:38:14 tantek: the next telcon is tuesday oct 6 17:38:40 eprodrom: one thing i wanted to quickly point out is in previous converstaions we've talked about having some participation by non-members, inviting outside participation 17:38:57 ... it may be good to think about what we want to do and so we can put out invitations to the public or specific developers 17:39:24 tantek: i agree. i think the participation that we wanted to focus on previously is around implementers in particular 17:39:42 ... specifically, implementers of social websites, popular existing social web services 17:39:54 ... i have a bunch of contacts at twitter if they'd want to swing by for a bit, even informally 17:40:06 ... harry has a list of folks who came to the workshop in 2013 17:40:22 q? 17:40:26 ... so harry it would be helpful if you could ping your contacts that we have a date for the next meeting 17:40:47 hhalpin: the list i have is interesting, there are some possible implementers, it's mostly companies that are in the space that have their own social projects 17:40:55 ... do we want to have a "get up to speed" session? 17:41:11 ... some of these people all came to the first workshop but may not have been here, haven't joined w3c since the fee was too high 17:41:16 .. i don't know how to structure the invitaion 17:41:18 q? 17:41:28 I'd suggest a day-before stakeholders meeting, if we can get enough people 17:41:39 ... would folks prefer observers? just come one day? have a get up to speed session? 17:41:55 ... my proposal would be to have a get up to speed session the day before or early the first day, then invite them as observers but don't let them take over the meeting 17:42:16 (and a hackathon after the meeting!) 17:42:23 tantek: i'm adding an observers section to the wiki so we can continue to discuss options there 17:42:31 https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2015-12-01#Observers 17:42:53 ... go ahead and edit the wiki on the observers section and add your proposal and we can discuss after the call 17:43:28 ... as much as we can focus on implementers that's one of our concerns right now, to get enough implementers to look at the specs and say can I build for this, how soon, that kind o things 17:43:43 hhalpin: agreed 100%, maybe we can get people who previously checked out to look at it again 17:43:48 q? 17:44:09 tantek: i think that's it for the agenda, any additional topics? 17:44:50 tantek: sandro also just suggested a hackathon after the meeting, that's a good idea 17:44:51 q? 17:44:52 that fits the indiewebcamp model 17:45:04 ... not hearing any additional topics i'm going to close the call and give you 15 minute sback! 17:45:10 Thanks tantek! 17:45:14 aaronpk++ for minuting! 17:45:17 aaronpk has 961 karma 17:45:25 see you a few months! 17:45:37 trackbot, end meeting 17:45:37 Zakim, list attendees 17:45:37 As of this point the attendees have been aaronpk, tantek, Arnaud, sandro, AnnB, hhalpin, eprodrom, ben_thatmustbeme, cwebber2, kevinmarks, tsyesika 17:45:40 be well, do good work 17:45:45 RRSAgent, please draft minutes 17:45:45 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/09/29-social-minutes.html trackbot 17:45:46 RRSAgent, bye 17:45:46 I see no action items